Dismantling the Department of Education: Constitutional Authority and the Future of Learning
The US Department of Education plays a pivotal role in administering federal education funding, protecting civil rights, promoting equity, and providing opportunities for all students. On March 11th, 2025, the Trump administration announced a reduction in force that would halve the already lean department. The dismantling of the US Department of Education has been met with fierce backlash from a barrage of lawsuits aiming to prevent or undo the damages. One such lawsuit is New York State, et al. v. Linda McMahon, et al., where 21 attorneys general representing 20 states and the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration arguing that the reduction in force not only risks the education and future of students and educators–but violates its authority enshrined within the Constitution.
On March 11th, 2025, the Department of Education announced that half of the department’s staff will be placed on administrative leave beginning Friday, March 21st. When President Trump was inaugurated, the department’s workforce was 4,133 workers. After this reduction of force, that number will change to approximately 2,183 employees. The Secretary of Education, Linda McMahon, claimed that the reduction reflected the department's “commitment to efficiency, accountability, and ensuring that resources are directed where they matter most: students, parents, and teachers.” [1] McMahon also claims that this reduction in force is a significant step to restoring the greatness of the United States education system. Following the layoffs, McMahon’s final plan is to dismantle the Department of Education. This is corroborated by President Trump, who on March 20th, issued an executive order to close the Department of Education and permit the Secretary of Education to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return authority over education to the States and local communities.” [2]
This mass layoff was challenged by 20 states and the District of Columbia in New York State, et al. v. Linda McMahon, et al., who allege that this reduction in force violates the Constitution by exceeding the President’s authority and unlawfully nullifies the department's ability to fulfill its statutory responsibilities. Firstly, the reduction in force violates the Separation of Powers Doctrine by usurping legislative authority. Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution establishes that: “[a]ll legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in . . . Congress.” [3] Alternatively, the Executive’s powers are limited to those specifically defined by the Constitution and federal statutes. Congress has created the Department of Education, the Executive and his agencies cannot inhibit or close it, absent Congressional action that directs them to do so. Therefore, any action by the President that directs an agency to take an action that runs afoul of a statute or the legislative intent of Congress or to perform statutory duties cease operations, violates the Separation of Powers doctrine. This being, the massive reduction in force in the Department of Education and the Executive Order to close the department is unlawful as it violates Constitutional and statutory mandates and contravene Congressional intent. Secondly, the order to close the Department of Education violates the Take Care Clause. The Take Care Clause provides that the executive must “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed . . . .”. [4] The President violates the Take Care Clause when it declines to execute or otherwise undermines statutes enacted by Congress and signed into law or duly promulgated regulations implementing such statutes. By issuing the executive order to dismantle the Department of Education, an agency authorized by Congress, the President failed to faithfully execute the laws enacted by Congress in violation of the Take Care Clause.
The massive reduction of force and intent to close the Department of Education also violates the Administrative Procedure Act. The core of the Administrative Procedure Act is how federal administrative agencies make rules and how they adjudicate administrative litigation. An agency may not take any action that exceeds the scope of its constitutional or statutory authority. Additionally, no constitutional or statutory authority can direct the Department of Education to refrain from fulfilling its statutory duties, or to violate federal law. An agency also may not violate its own regulations. Per the Administrative Procedure Act, the Department of Education lacks the authority to implement the reduction in force, as the reduction in force or other efforts to dismantle the Department explicitly contradicts Congress's statutory mandates. The Department of Education also lacks authority to implement the order as it calls for actions that are not authorized by statute, and are in direct contradiction of statutory authority governing the creation and operation of the Department of Education. The Department of Education also lacks the authority to use a massive reduction in force to override their limitations on their power to dismantle statutorily mandated agency functions.
Furthermore, massive reduction in force was "arbitrary and capricious" which violates the Administrative Procedure Act, making it unlawful. The Administrative Procedure Act requires that a court “hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be . . . arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” [5] An agency action is arbitrary or capricious where it is not “reasonable and reasonably explained.” [6] An action is also arbitrary and capricious if the agency “failed to consider . . . important aspect[s] of the problem” before taking the action. [7] The mass layoffs at the Department of Education are arbitrary and capricious because the department did not provide any reasonable basis or explanation nor did the department consider the consequences of their actions. The actions impede the ability to perform the department’s functions. Additionally, the reduction in force is "arbitrary and capricious" the reasons of “efficiency” and “accountability” for reducing the Department’s workforce are pretexts for the President’s main goal of closing the Department entirely.
However, the mass layoffs at the Department of Education are not only unlawful–but critically risk the future of education for students and educators alike. The Department of Education works to close the gaps in educational opportunity and provide vital funding and support to students, especially those most vulnerable. The Department of Education enforces civil rights laws, supports students with disabilities, promotes equal educational opportunities, bolsters the educator workforce, and administers the Federal Student Aid programs that increase the accessibility of secondary education. The dismantling of the department would risk funding provided to those under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and to key federal grant programs like including Title I funding, which supports more than half of the nation’s public schools. [8] Without the Department of Education, the federal government would not have the capability to collect data to identify and inform policy to address disparities in education. The Department of Education is also statutorily mandated to enforce national student privacy laws and to provide students and parents a way to challenge privacy abuses. If the department were to be eliminated, it would risk the lives of millions of marginalized students such as those from low-income families, students with disabilities, English learners, homeless students, LGBTQ+ students, rural students, and others who depend on resources from the Department of Education. The closure of the Department of Education would also jeopardize more than 400,000 educator jobs. [9]
There should be little doubt that the Department of Education is essential. With the massive reduction in staff and the plan to dismantle the department completely, this decision not only risks the future of the countless students and educators who rely on the department’s existence–but the constitutional authority this nation is built on. While the outcome of this case is uncertain, one thing is for certain: we must ensure the future for the children of tomorrow.
Edited by Ava Betanco-Born
Endnotes
[1] “U.S. Department of Education Initiates Reduction in Force.” 2025. U.S. Department of Education. March 11, 2025. https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-education-initiates-reduction-force.
[2] Exec. Order 14,242 90 FR 13679 (2025) https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/03/25/2025-05213/improving-education-outcomes-by-empowering-parents-states-and-communities
[3] US Const Art I.
[4] US Const Art II, § 3.
[5] Scope of Review, 5 USC § 706(2)(A).
[6] FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project, 592 U.S. 414, 423 (2021).
[7] Department of Homeland Security. v. Regents of the University of California, 591 U.S. 1, 25 (2020) (quoting Motor Vehicle Mfrs., 463 U.S. at 43).
[8] Mimbela, Ricardo. “Trump’s Attack on the Department of Education, Explained.” American Civil Liberties Union, March 14, 2025. https://www.aclu.org/news/racial-justice/trumps-attack-on-the-department-of-education-explained.
[9] Jotkoff, Eric. “Coalition Sues Trump Administration for Dismantling Department of Education, Hurting All Students .” National Education Association, March 24, 2025. https://www.nea.org/about-nea/media-center/press-releases/coalition-sues-trump-administration-dismantling-department-education-hurting-all-students.